Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Ferenc Kovacs writes ("Re: debian status on using the PHP license for pear/pecl extensions"):
> Thanks for the reply.

Sorry about the delay replying.  This one is more complicated than
most.

> I see that there is no answer for Q4 in your forwarded mail, was that
> originally not answered or just lost somewhere when forwarding?

Nothing was lost while forwarding.  I think the email does contain an
answer to Q4:

> > From: [redacted by iwj] <[redacted]@softwarefreedom.org>
...
> > >> Q4. Does including this statement pose any ethical, legal or practical
> > >>    risk in the case where the software is _not_ in fact written or
> > >>    provided by the PHP Development Team ?
> >
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >> Q5. Does the fact that the PHP licence conditions about the use of the
> > >>    PHP name are contained in the actual copyright licence, rather than
> > >>    in a separate trademark licence, significantly increase the risks
> > >>    we would face if we had a disagreement with upstream about our
> > >>    modifications (or our failure to seek approval) ?
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > No they don't increase your risks as they are attempting to enforce a
> > trademark rights (that they may or may not have) through a copyright
> > license, the chances of enforceability of such terms are weak.

This seems to me to be an answer to both Q4 and Q5.  Note that the
first "they" is a plural.


I suggest that the next steps are:

1. Some relevant package maintainers should post a blog posting about
   this issue, which should appear on planet.d.o and other appropriate
   places.  A copy should probably go to -legal and maybe -project.

   The blog posting should c&p the wording from the legal advice,
   point to this advice posting, and say that the maintainers are
   going to follow it.

2. The relevant package maintainers should resubmit the packaqes to
   NEW with the disclaimer text from the legal advice copied into the
   copyright file.

3. ftpmaster should (if they see fit) post a blog post or mailing list
   article of their own.

4. The packages should be accepted.

5. And any bugs about this licence issue should be closed with
   references to the public statements I mention above.

Ian.